7 ms·

It is my understanding that he was beaten by police officers, and the randomness of the twitter feed was the result of head trauma, or some other injury he had

by fao_ 11y ago

It is my understanding that he was beaten by police officers, and the randomness of the twitter feed was the result of head trauma, or some other injury he had sustained during the attack.

Alupis 11y ago
> It is my understanding that he was beaten by police officers, and the randomness of the twitter feed was the result of head trauma Unfortunately that does not appear to be true. The cause of death is not known at this stage, but it is not believed to be suspicious. A spokesperson for Docker said it was a "private matter." According to the San Francisco police, officers were called to Steiner and Union St in the city at 11.30pm on Saturday, December 26, following reports of a man trying to break into a home – that man was identified as Ian Murdock. He reportedly fought with the cops, and was given a ticket for two counts of assault and one for obstruction of an officer. The techie had been drinking, according to the police logs. A medic arrived to treat an abrasion to Murdock's forehead, and he was released so he could be taken to hospital. A few hours later, on Sunday, December 27 at 2.40am, police were called again to reports of Murdock banging on the door of a neighbor at the very same block. A medic arrived to treat him for any injuries. Officers then took Murdock to the county jail where he was held in a cell. Murdock was bailed later that day, on Sunday, after a bond, said to be $25,000, was paid. He died the next day. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_founder/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_f... It's clear something may have been wrong prior to any incidents occurring (why was Ian out in the streets alone, very drunk, trying to break into a home?).
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Let's wait for an independent investigation on what happened, since the police may have been involved.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > since the police may have been involved. Have we really reached this level of paranoia? There are multiple police reports from each of the calls to him. Conspiricy theorists will just claim the reports have been doctored or whatever, but in reality the police wouldn't of known who it was before responding to the call, and probably still didn't know who it was after responding to the call. What is clear is Ian, very dunk at the time, did resist arrest and assaulted the officers (per the report). Each time he was treated by a medical professional and deemed OK to be released. He didn't go to the hospital like advised, instead seemingly opting to continue drinking and running about in public at 2:40 AM banging on people's front doors. There are many cases of real police brutality - this is not one.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >Have we really reached this level of paranoia? What paranoia? The police pulls shit like that all the time and calls it "assaulting an officer" is you dare say anything back. Including to 12 and 15 year old unarmed kids. While we might have reasons to think otherwise for this particular case, the paranoia is very much guaranteed in the general case.
    - umanwizard 11y ago
      The reports don't have to have been "doctored", they can very well have not been true to begin with. Not sure why this would require them to have any idea who Murdock was. This isn't necessarily related to him being the inventor of Debian. Maybe he was just talking back to the cops and they exaggerated it to "resisting arrest" in the report. I mean, the reports may well be true and Murdock may well have been suffering from some mental issues (the Twitter posts seem to bear this out). But it's nuts to think we can just trust the police and that if they say something wasn't police brutality then that's the end of the story.
    - dave2000 11y ago
      > Have we really reached this level of paranoia? Watching the news in the US from the UK, it's pretty clear that you (in the states) long ago reached the point where it's not even paranoia any more. The police there killed more civilians in a few weeks of the year than the UK police have killed here in hundreds of years. They murder and lie about it; it's going to be interesting to see what happens now that it's routinely caught on camera, but to suggest that there's anything tin-foil-hat crazy about suggesting that the police might have done something wrong here which has resulted in someone's death betrays a naive (at best) comprehension of the situation there today.
- umanwizard 11y ago
  How does that in any way suggest the police didn't give him head trauma? Just a lot of "the police say he did this", which is justification for why they arrested him (assuming they can be trusted, which we all know is not the case) but even if true doesn't explain what went down during the fight/arrest or how serious an injury resulted in the forehead "abrasion".
  - Alupis 11y ago
    Medics checked him out each time, and cleared him. Are you suggesting Medics aren't to be trusted now too? To what extent does this paranoia carry? > How does that in any way suggest the police didn't give him head trauma? How does this in any way suggest the police gave him head trauma? That's a straw man if I ever saw one. The head trauma was a theory floated before the police reports where looked into (party because Ian was ranting about being "beaten" and "raped" by the police during his drunken rage). It's pretty clear that is not the case now. The most likely cause of death, was suicide (as announced by Ian himself just a few hours prior). The man was out in the streets, alone, heavily drunk, and attempting to break into someone's home. This is a situation where we should want the police to intervene. Just a few hours later, Ian was out in the streets, even more heavily intoxicated, this time pounding on random people's front door at 2:40 AM. This is a situation where we should want the police to intervene. It's clear something was going on with Ian before all this started. What sequence of events led up to him being this drunk and disorderly in public at that wee hour of the morning? Yet, because Ian, in his drunken rage, perceived the police as being out to just beat and rape him, people will cling to that theory and claim police brutality, without a single minute piece of evidence. How many times has a drunken person mistakenly become violent against someone else who's trying to make them do something they don't want to do (send Ian home in this case)? All the time. The police reports read as just another drunk dude in the streets... it's a common story. Nothing unusual here. It's curious times when we take the word of a drunk over official reports from multiple agencies and parties involved (police, paramedics, neighbors calls, etc...)
    - 0xcde4c3db 11y ago
      > Medics checked him out each time, and cleared him. Are you suggesting Medics aren't to be trusted now too? As with all medical professionals, they are not to be trusted to be omniscient. Clearing him for release is not the same thing as guaranteeing that he had no dangerous injuries.
- thescriptkiddie 11y ago
  The quoted section seems to be evidence in favor of that story, not against.
dpark 11y ago
> It is my understanding that ... the randomness of the twitter feed was the result of head trauma This is not your understanding. This is your conjecture.
- fao_ 11y ago
  un·der·stand·ing (ŭn′dər-stăn′dĭng) n. 1. a) The ability by which one understands; intelligence: concepts that are beyond the understanding of a child. ... 2. Individual or specified judgment or outlook; opinion: In my understanding, this is a good plan. ... 'Understanding' is correct in this instance, unless you wish to be extremely pedantic.
  - dpark 11y ago
    No, it's not correct. You have insufficient information with which to render an "individual or specified judgement or outlook" on this matter. What you've done is provide your guesswork as if it's based on meaningful information. You have no data supporting your claim that Murdock's head trauma caused his erratic comments on Twitter. I don't believe it's even known whether he had meaningful head trauma. This isn't pedantry. You are basically lying. What you've done is present one of many possible explanations as if it is the correct one, despite having no data to back your claim. This is like claiming that a rogue Chipotle employee intentionally introduced e. coli into their food supply. This is a possible explanation, but it's just wild conjecture. Presenting it as "your understanding" would be to present it as if it were a factual claim.

by fao_ 11y ago

It is my understanding that he was beaten by police officers, and the randomness of the twitter feed was the result of head trauma, or some other injury he had sustained during the attack.

Alupis 11y ago

> It is my understanding that he was beaten by police officers, and the randomness of the twitter feed was the result of head trauma Unfortunately that does not appear to be true. The cause of death is not known at this stage, but it is not believed to be suspicious. A spokesperson for Docker said it was a "private matter." According to the San Francisco police, officers were called to Steiner and Union St in the city at 11.30pm on Saturday, December 26, following reports of a man trying to break into a home – that man was identified as Ian Murdock. He reportedly fought with the cops, and was given a ticket for two counts of assault and one for obstruction of an officer. The techie had been drinking, according to the police logs. A medic arrived to treat an abrasion to Murdock's forehead, and he was released so he could be taken to hospital. A few hours later, on Sunday, December 27 at 2.40am, police were called again to reports of Murdock banging on the door of a neighbor at the very same block. A medic arrived to treat him for any injuries. Officers then took Murdock to the county jail where he was held in a cell. Murdock was bailed later that day, on Sunday, after a bond, said to be $25,000, was paid. He died the next day. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_founder/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_f... It's clear something may have been wrong prior to any incidents occurring (why was Ian out in the streets alone, very drunk, trying to break into a home?).

ekianjo 11y ago
Let's wait for an independent investigation on what happened, since the police may have been involved.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > since the police may have been involved. Have we really reached this level of paranoia? There are multiple police reports from each of the calls to him. Conspiricy theorists will just claim the reports have been doctored or whatever, but in reality the police wouldn't of known who it was before responding to the call, and probably still didn't know who it was after responding to the call. What is clear is Ian, very dunk at the time, did resist arrest and assaulted the officers (per the report). Each time he was treated by a medical professional and deemed OK to be released. He didn't go to the hospital like advised, instead seemingly opting to continue drinking and running about in public at 2:40 AM banging on people's front doors. There are many cases of real police brutality - this is not one.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Have we really reached this level of paranoia? What paranoia? The police pulls shit like that all the time and calls it "assaulting an officer" is you dare say anything back. Including to 12 and 15 year old unarmed kids. While we might have reasons to think otherwise for this particular case, the paranoia is very much guaranteed in the general case.
  - umanwizard 11y ago
    The reports don't have to have been "doctored", they can very well have not been true to begin with. Not sure why this would require them to have any idea who Murdock was. This isn't necessarily related to him being the inventor of Debian. Maybe he was just talking back to the cops and they exaggerated it to "resisting arrest" in the report. I mean, the reports may well be true and Murdock may well have been suffering from some mental issues (the Twitter posts seem to bear this out). But it's nuts to think we can just trust the police and that if they say something wasn't police brutality then that's the end of the story.
  - dave2000 11y ago
    > Have we really reached this level of paranoia? Watching the news in the US from the UK, it's pretty clear that you (in the states) long ago reached the point where it's not even paranoia any more. The police there killed more civilians in a few weeks of the year than the UK police have killed here in hundreds of years. They murder and lie about it; it's going to be interesting to see what happens now that it's routinely caught on camera, but to suggest that there's anything tin-foil-hat crazy about suggesting that the police might have done something wrong here which has resulted in someone's death betrays a naive (at best) comprehension of the situation there today.
umanwizard 11y ago
How does that in any way suggest the police didn't give him head trauma? Just a lot of "the police say he did this", which is justification for why they arrested him (assuming they can be trusted, which we all know is not the case) but even if true doesn't explain what went down during the fight/arrest or how serious an injury resulted in the forehead "abrasion".
- Alupis 11y ago
  Medics checked him out each time, and cleared him. Are you suggesting Medics aren't to be trusted now too? To what extent does this paranoia carry? > How does that in any way suggest the police didn't give him head trauma? How does this in any way suggest the police gave him head trauma? That's a straw man if I ever saw one. The head trauma was a theory floated before the police reports where looked into (party because Ian was ranting about being "beaten" and "raped" by the police during his drunken rage). It's pretty clear that is not the case now. The most likely cause of death, was suicide (as announced by Ian himself just a few hours prior). The man was out in the streets, alone, heavily drunk, and attempting to break into someone's home. This is a situation where we should want the police to intervene. Just a few hours later, Ian was out in the streets, even more heavily intoxicated, this time pounding on random people's front door at 2:40 AM. This is a situation where we should want the police to intervene. It's clear something was going on with Ian before all this started. What sequence of events led up to him being this drunk and disorderly in public at that wee hour of the morning? Yet, because Ian, in his drunken rage, perceived the police as being out to just beat and rape him, people will cling to that theory and claim police brutality, without a single minute piece of evidence. How many times has a drunken person mistakenly become violent against someone else who's trying to make them do something they don't want to do (send Ian home in this case)? All the time. The police reports read as just another drunk dude in the streets... it's a common story. Nothing unusual here. It's curious times when we take the word of a drunk over official reports from multiple agencies and parties involved (police, paramedics, neighbors calls, etc...)
  - 0xcde4c3db 11y ago
    > Medics checked him out each time, and cleared him. Are you suggesting Medics aren't to be trusted now too? As with all medical professionals, they are not to be trusted to be omniscient. Clearing him for release is not the same thing as guaranteeing that he had no dangerous injuries.
thescriptkiddie 11y ago
The quoted section seems to be evidence in favor of that story, not against.

dpark 11y ago

> It is my understanding that ... the randomness of the twitter feed was the result of head trauma This is not your understanding. This is your conjecture.

fao_ 11y ago
un·der·stand·ing (ŭn′dər-stăn′dĭng) n. 1. a) The ability by which one understands; intelligence: concepts that are beyond the understanding of a child. ... 2. Individual or specified judgment or outlook; opinion: In my understanding, this is a good plan. ... 'Understanding' is correct in this instance, unless you wish to be extremely pedantic.
- dpark 11y ago
  No, it's not correct. You have insufficient information with which to render an "individual or specified judgement or outlook" on this matter. What you've done is provide your guesswork as if it's based on meaningful information. You have no data supporting your claim that Murdock's head trauma caused his erratic comments on Twitter. I don't believe it's even known whether he had meaningful head trauma. This isn't pedantry. You are basically lying. What you've done is present one of many possible explanations as if it is the correct one, despite having no data to back your claim. This is like claiming that a rogue Chipotle employee intentionally introduced e. coli into their food supply. This is a possible explanation, but it's just wild conjecture. Presenting it as "your understanding" would be to present it as if it were a factual claim.